Minnesota Senate Case Highlights Potential Conflicts for Judges

Before judges join the bench, they are free to contribute to political candidates, just like any other citizen. But should that candidate eventually wind up in their courtroom, can these donors serve as impartial arbiters of the law? Such is the question now being asked by many observers as the U.S. Senate contest in Minnesota appears to be headed for the state’s Supreme Court.

Republican Norm Coleman filed a suit to challenge the results of November’s election, which narrowly favored Democrat Al Franken. On Monday a three-judge panel declared that Franken officially received 312 more votes than Coleman, out of nearly 3 million votes cast. Coleman now has 10 days to appeal the decision of the recount trial to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

If he does appeal, Coleman will come before several individuals who have made partisan contributions during their careers before joining the court. Of the seven members of the Minnesota Supreme Court, two have personally contributed to federal candidates—one justice contributed multiple times to Coleman and another contributed to Coleman’s 2002 opponent. The spouses of two of the court’s other justices have also contributed, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Justice Christopher Dietzen leads the court in political giving before joining the bench, with $6,775 in contributions to federal Republican causes since the 1990 election cycle, including $500 to Norm Coleman and $1,000 to the political action committee Freedom Club of America, which included Coleman in the small handful of lawmakers that it funneled cash to. Dietzen’s contributions also included $1,950 to former Sen. Rod Grams (R-Minn.), $1,000 to the Republican National Committee and $625 to President George W. Bush.

Justice Helen Meyer ranks second in personal giving. Her federal donations total $5,500 over the last 20 years , all to Democrats, including $2,500 to former Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), whom Coleman challenged in 2002, $1,500 to former Rep. Bill Luther (D-Minn.), $750 to the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (as Minnesota’s branch of the Democratic Party is known) and $250 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The spouses of both Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and Justice Alan Page have also made modest political contributions. Gildea’s husband Andy Gildea is a Republican staffer in the state House of Representatives and has given $2,420 to Republican candidates at the federal level, including $2,020 to Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.). Page’s wife, Diane Sims Page, has donated $1,950 to federal Democratic lawmakers, including $200 to Wellstone, $250 to 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry and $1,500 to Hillary Clinton, with most of it supporting her 2008 run for president.

According to Minnesota news sources, four of the justices also made partisan contributions at the state level before ascending to the bench.

The judicial ethics code in Minnesota calls for judges to be “unswayed by partisan interests,” to “perform judicial duties without bias” and to “promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Sitting judges are barred from making political contributions or accepting gifts from persons whose interests may come before the judge. And to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest, judges may recuse themselves from cases.

Already, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson have both said they would recuse themselves from any Supreme Court hearing on the election because they each participated in the official statewide recount that Coleman is challenging.

Some think that Dietzen’s past contributions are sufficient grounds for the justice to recuse himself as well. MyDD blogger Senate Guru calls these contributions a “crystal clear conflict of interest” and is encouraging people to contact the justice’s office.

But Adam Skaggs, counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school , which advocates for fair and impartial courts, cautions against sweeping calls for recusal of judges with histories of political contributions, past personal political experiences or family ties to partisan activities.

“A hard and fast rule saying judges with any political involvement would rule out a lot of people from serving on the bench,” he told Capital Eye. “It’s unrealistic to expect that any judge would have an entirely blank slate.”

“It would be entirely understandable and justifiable for [Dietzen] to choose to recuse himself,” Skaggs said. “But I expect he would not, because he hasn’t recused himself from any earlier proceedings.”

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.